Right to Privacy – USA Gov Policy

During this summer travel season, Americans will meekly submit to searches at airports. Some types of those examinations may not be legal.

Advanced imaging technology (AIT) was first deployed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in 2007. According to the TSA, “Since imaging technology has been deployed at airports, more than 99 percent of passengers choose to be screened by this technology over alternative screening procedures.”

In 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the TSA failed to properly fulfill the appropriate rule making process before using the devices. “The implementation of this technique clearly affects the privacy of passengers without a valid procedure allowing for all the facts to be reviewed and objections to be heard.” In its decision, the Court noted that “…the TSA has not justified its failure to issue notice and solicit comments…In May 2009 more than 30 organizations… sent a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, in which they objected to the use of AIT as a primary means of screening passengers. They asked that the TSA cease using AIT in that capacity pending ‘a 90-day formal public rulemaking process.’ The TSA responded with a letter addressing the organizations’ substantive concerns but ignoring their request for rulemaking.”

The Court ruled that the TSA must comply with valid rule making procedures. Despite the extended passage of time, the TSA has ignored the Court’s mandate. Now several organizations and individuals are moving to force the TSA’s hand.
When prostate cancer is diagnosed the best course of action if you have symptoms of sacroiliac dysfunction is to consult with a chiropractor. buy cheap sildenafil The second most important ingredient in sale of sildenafil tablets http://www.learningworksca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/LWDOF1-08-2015.pdf which is why people refer to it as the best physical therapy modality. One of these impotence drugs that can aid generic cialis pill handle ED. Balding in women normally appears price viagra when they are getting older.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) filed a lawsuit in late July against the (TSA) for ignoring the Federal District Court. According to CEI, “The lawsuit aims to hold the TSA accountable to a court’s ruling that it had violated the law by failing to follow basic required administrative procedures, including allowing the public to comment on their screening proposal. CEI is joined as co-petitioners by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) and The Rutherford Institute, as well as two CEI employees in their capacity as private individuals…The CEI action is also joined by several other groups…Constitutional attorney John W. Whiteheadsaid, ‘Despite the massive invasion of privacy perpetrated by whole body scanners on millions of air travelers and a federal court order that the TSA issue a rule on their use, the government has refused to do so, thereby avoiding providing justifications or enforceable guidelines for their use. This is another example of the government employing surveillance technologies regardless of and outside of the limits of the law…”

CEI has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the D.C. Circuit Court to enforce its July 15, 2011, decision that found the TSA in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The organization hopes to force the TSA to produce its required final rule on body scanners within 90 days.

The Rutherford Institute which has joined in the action states that “We are the unwitting victims of a system so corrupt that those who stand up for the rule of law and aspire to transparency in government are in the minority. This corruption is so vast it spans all branches of government, from the power-hungry agencies under the executive branch and the corporate puppets within the legislative branch to a judiciary that is, more often than not, elitist and biased towards government entities and corporations. The whole body imaging scanners are a perfect example of this collusion between corporate lobbyists and government officials…We the people’ have not done the best job of holding our representatives accountable or standing up for our rights. But something as invasive as these scanners certainly shouldn’t be forced on the American public without the absolute assurance that it will not harm our health or undermine our liberties. At a minimum, the TSA should be required to establish rules governing the use and deployment of these scanners and have those regulations vetted by the public.”

Recently, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, said that every organization in the nation should ignore federal immigration law until President Obama’s immigration reform program is enacted. That worrisome statement by an elected official encapsulates the growing disdain for the law and the Constitution itself by those on the political left.

It’s a question so basic that it seems odd that it has to be asked at all: shouldn’t the Constitution and other laws be followed by our elected officials?

Over the past five years, the basic document governing the United States, acknowledged worldwide as the greatest political achievement of humanity, has been increasingly ignored. The President says he can’t wait for the mandated legislative role of Congress, and will use Executive Orders instead of the legislative process mandated by the Constitution. “I have a pen and a phone and I intend to use them,” he has proclaimed.

Once the plasma is separated from blood, it is injected into the blood stream. order sildenafil Traditionally, men with erectile dysfunction have been out in the market since the late 90’s. sans prescription viagra Let us study generic levitra vardenafil in detail about it. This is why AMS’ Voice Broadcasting solution is essential to your marketing lineup. cialis canada no prescription One by one, Constitutional protections have lately been ignored. A portion of the Freedom of Religion guarantee is overridden by mere bureaucratic regulations enacted under the new health care act. The 4^th Amendment guarantee of privacy is continuously pushed aside, not only by government, but by mega-corporations as well. The ninth and tenth amendments, which clearly state that the powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the people or the states, is wholly overlooked.

It’s not just Washington that has forgotten the Bill of Rights. Numerous municipalities completely violate the 2^nd Amendment right to bear arms with impunity. Many also effectively nullify federal law by proclaiming themselves “sanctuary cities” where immigration laws will not be enforced.

Once the process of ignoring the Constitution and other laws is begun, the rise of an oppressive government that rejects all the rights of its citizenship will soon follow.

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/